|
Energy Victory: Winning the War on Terror by Breaking Free of Oil | 
 enlarge | Author: Robert Zubrin
Publisher: Prometheus Books
Category: Book
List Price: $25.95
Buy Used: $13.13
You Save: $12.82 (49%)
New (32) Used (17) from $13.13
Rating:  54 reviews
Sales Rank: 36120
Media: Hardcover
Pages: 336
Number Of Items: 1
Shipping Weight (lbs): 0.9
Dimensions (in): 9.1 x 6.1 x 1.2
ISBN: 1591025915
Dewey Decimal Number: 333.790973
EAN: 9781591025917
ASIN: 1591025915
Publication Date: November 10, 2007
Availability: Usually ships in 1-2 business days
Shipping: Expedited shipping available
Shipping: International shipping available
Condition: Inscribed by author to previous owner on half title page. No other markings. Appears unread or very gently so. Dust cover excellent.
| |
| Also Available In:
|
| Similar Items:
|
| Editorial Reviews:
Product Description
In this compelling argument for a new direction in US energy policy, the author lays out a bold plan for breaking the economic stranglehold that the OPEC oil cartel has on the country and the world. It is suggested that the US relationship with OPEC has resulted in the looting of the American economy, corruption of the political system and has helped fund terrorist units dedicated to the destruction of the US. The book offers an exciting vision for a dynamic new energy policy which will not only help safeguard US security in the future but will also provide solutions for global warming and Third World development.
|
| Customer Reviews: Read 49 more reviews...
 A Blueprint for Energy Independence through Alcohol Fuels November 13, 2007
William J. Wolski (Wheaton, IL USA)
54 out of 57 found this review helpful
Zubrin forcefully postulates that a complete switch to ethanol and methanol fuel, replacing Mideast Oil, particularly from the Saudis, is America's answer to true Energy Independence.
Starting with forced conversions to flex fuel for all new vehicles sold in the U.S.--doubly more ambitious than the Administration's exhortations to the Big Three Automakers that half their annual production be flex-fuel- capable by 2012--alcohol fuels based on flex-ubiquity, Zubrin contends, would quickly supplant petroleum as the dominant fuel source.
Using a methodical historical narrative, Zubrin traces the flow of petrodollars from the U.S. to Osama Bin Laden. A petro-feed to hatred of the West, the route carries us through the Saudi Royal Family's support of radical Islam, its strict fundamentalist teachings and zealotry traced to Ibn Abdul Wahhab and Bin Laden.
7.5 million barrels a day of alcohol fuels, a tough but attainable goal, is the counter balance that leads us to Zubrin's Energy Victory.
Laced with facts and figures and some easy math, it's sure to devolve to the policy points of some presidential candidate.
Energy Salvation via Alcohol Fuel December 5, 2007
Fred W. Hallberg (Janesville, Iowa United States)
48 out of 54 found this review helpful
Robert Zubrin's book could not be more relevant to the current political scene. The compromise energy bill is moving toward a vote in both the House and Senate. A simple majority is assured, but will it be filibustered to death or vetoed by the President? A few more Republican votes would assure passage over against such resistance, and Zubrin's book just might produce that effect.
Zubrin is quite hawkish in his views about the current world-wide struggle by the democratic West against "Islamofascism." His critique of Wahhabism (the puritanical version of Islam widely affirmed within the ruling elite of Saudi Arabia) seems well grounded. (He draws heavily for his historical interpretation of Islam on the writing of Ibn Waqrraq, whom I believe to be quite reliable.) He then draws an analogy between the vulnerability of the Nazis and the Japanese to the American attacks on their sources of oil in World War II, to our vulnerability to "Islamofascism" in the current war on terrorism. (He opines, for example, that the reason the first President Bush did not provide air support for the Kurds and Shiites who rose against Saddam Hussein after the First Gulf War, was because the Saudi's were able to enforce their desires on us through back channel threats of oil disruptions.)
What is his solution to this threat by the Saudis to our political autonomy? Simply develop bio-fuels in the form of methanol and/or ethanol as a substitute for petroleum as a transportation fuel.
This solution has been on the table since the Carter admisistration. But it has been negated every time it has gotten close to implementation by two countervailing forces. The Saudi's have been able to reduce prices enough to make the transition to bio-fuels economically unattractive, or else the oil industry supporters have been able to use their money to sabotage such policies in Congress. Zubrin hopes there is now enough political support to push through a bio-fuels program despite such resistance. His book is part of that push to realize his ideas.
The National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) has emphasized there are two "platforms" for producing alcohol fuel from biomass. There is the "Thermochemical" platform and the ""Biochemical" platform. The former produces alcohol by heating the biomass until it breaks down into "syngas" (carbonmonoxide and hydrogen). Syngas can then be condensed into methanol (wood alcohol), or with suitable catalysts and refining it can be made into ethanol. The biochemical platform is what is getting the most publicity today as the preferred way to make "cellulosic" ethanol (ethanol produced from corn stover rather than from corn starch). Zubrin really favors the other thermochemical platform because we know it works with any kind of biomass, and because it can be used to make alcohol fuel from coal as well as from biomass. This shows that he is much more interested in energy independence as a way to defeat "Islamofascism," than he is in cutting carbon-dioxide emissions to mitigate global warming.
Zubrin claims the technical breakthrough which made his alcohol liquid fuel program possible was the "flex-fuel" technology first developed by an inventive woman engineer at Ford named Roberta Nichols. Her invention enabled an engine to run on any mixture of alcohol or gasoline. (It could not, however, tolerate mixing different amounts of methanol and ethanol. Later developments first used in Brazil allowed an engine to run equally well on any mixture of gasoline, methanol and of ethanol.) Flex-fuel vehicles provide the key to the Zubrin's alcohol revolution. All that is required is an additional $100 per new car for the flex fuel technology. Initially most cars will run on straight gasoline or on E-10 (10% ethanol). But as the price of oil rises, alcohol alternatives will become ever more cost competitive, and drivers will choose to "fill up" on various mixtures of cheaper alcohol as they become available. This transition has already happened in Brazil, and Brazil has now become energy independent. Zubrin is proposing that we do the same.
The oil lobby is still trying to prevent this transition from occurring here in the U.S. Zubrin is grateful to the farm lobby for having provided a countervailing political force to the oil lobby (even though the farm lobby is no more virtuous than the oil lobby). The selfishness of corn growers might just free the world from dependence on Mideastern oil, the malevolent influence of "Islamofascism," and lift third world farmers out of their abject poverty. (The limitless market for bio-fuels will improve the economic viability of farmers world-wide.)
Meanwhile, Congress must pass the energy bill to get this ball rolling. I can only hope Zubrin's book helps bring about the optimistic energy future he foresees.
Energy Independence is Critical to Beating Islamofascism December 3, 2007
S. Duval (austin, tx)
24 out of 27 found this review helpful
This is a great book!
Dr Zubrin lays out a plan to achieve Energy Independence, defeat the Terrorists, improve the environment, and support Third World development.
Does he square the circla as well? Nope. But he does deliver on the others.
Dr. Zubrin proposes biomass as the source of alcohol fuels (ethanol and methanol) to power our automobiles. He describes the program in Brazil which went from 0% market share to 100% market share for flexfuel vehicles in three years. Currently the Brazilians use ethanol to satisfy 40% of their transportation fuel requirements.
Third World farmers could grow crops designed for conversion to methanol just as Brazil developed a strain of sugar cane which was optimized for ethanol production. Currently Third World farmers are shut out of Western markets for Agricultural products. Methanol crops would provide them with export opportunities without hurting our farmers.
Every dollar we dont spend on oil is one less dollar which could end up in the hands of terrorists. We talk about stopping the flow of funds to the terrorists but every time we fill up at the gas station we are sending them a care package.
Alcohol fuels are also much better for the environment than gasoline. They are soluble in water and are biodegradable by common bacteria.
There is also a great chapter on oil and WW2. After reading this chapter, I am sure that you will want to achieve Energy Independence as soon as possible.
A similar approach to that proposed by Dr. Zubrin uses nuclear power to produce electricity, substitutes electricity for natural gas for heating, and converts the freed up natural gas to methanol for transportation.
 Zubrin strikes out -AGAIN!! May 4, 2008
Teresa E. Tutt (Houston, TX United States)
22 out of 48 found this review helpful
After his push to colonize that utterly useless world called Mars (the real wealth of the solar system is in the Asteroid Belt and icy moons, easily available and not at the bottom of a gravity well), Zubrin moves on to another political boondoggle, ethanol.
His arguments fail on nearly every point. The argument about unused farmland is especially irrelevant. Even if all of the arable land in the US were dedicated to alcohol production (including switchgrass, cellulosic ethanol, and methanol), the most we could ever hope to achieve is to replace about 15% of our gasoline usage (representing at most about 10% of our total oil imports dedicated to gasoline production). Let's see, starve the world to replace ~1/10 of one's oil imports? Don't think so.
Most seriously, the energy balance is not there. It takes about 10 barrels of oil to produce the ethanol energy equivalent of 11. That's an energy return of about 1.1 to 1. Actually when one factors in storage and transport issues it's much lower, maybe down to 1 to 1 (breakeven) or even lower (net loss). If you have a company that you are trying to save from bankruptcy, do you pour your resources into a division that breaks even or loses money? Not if you hope to remain in business for long.
Pointing to the success of Brazil provides no solution for the US either. Brazil straddles the Equator and receives about 22% greater solar energy flux than the US does. That, along with a more efficient crop (sugar cane) and a year-round growing season, gives Brazil an energy return of about 5 to 1. One unintended consequence of this "success", however, is that rainforest destruction (remember the rainforest?) has accelerated at an alarming rate due to more and more acres of it being turned into fuel.
Ethanol and other bio-fuels, far from providing an energy "victory" for the US, will only lead to an energy "defeat", and starve the rest of the world in the process.
Zubrin for the Peace Prize? December 30, 2007
Reticuli (Las Vegas)
20 out of 24 found this review helpful
Energy Victory outlines the first step towards an energy solution for the United States, the path to energy development for the world, and a 1-2 punch to the Gulf States that are funding terror against us. Bob Zubrin has shown us the way in one swoop. He's totally convinced me. It's not everyday you read a book that changes your mind on so many key issues and leaves little to disagree on of import. I understood the situation with Saudi Arabia & the rest of the OPEC "cartel" states, terrorism, etc, as well as the stinking red-herring of hydrogen. But alcohols and mandating flex-fuel cars at an additional cost of almost zero on the consumer end? Potentially allowing the poor of the world to also pull themselves up by their own bootstraps (or sandal straps, in this case) by participating in a world alcohol economy? This is just downright genius. Really, I don't know how else to put it.
Fusion power, probably from a massive Manhattan Project-level effort, will need government funding at some point to free us of fossil fuels for power generation in general. I still believe that and Zubrin does not attempt to refute Fusion or the eventual desirability of pure electric cars. However, he's convinced me to be realistic about the engineering hurdles of Fusion and pure electric's unrealistic short-term prospects in the marketplace, especially considering car companies resistance to the latter. That is a global climate change solution. Yes, biofuels still produce some carbon. Certainly it is an improvement in the right direction. This, however, is a strategic security & economic issue, and flex-fuel can deliver.
Bringing the troops home, invading the west coast of the Persian Gulf, saving the rain forest, hybrid cars, and yes, even health care...everything else is frankly secondary. FLEX-FUEL VEHICALS MUST BE MANDATED AS OUTLINED BY ZUBRIN. You want a flex-fuel plug-in hybrid-electric? Great, but voluntary. Have the money and want to buy a Tesla-motor full electric sports car? Be my guest! Love the kick standard petrol gives? Fine! Again, totally optional. But the competition that results from a simple flex-fuel mandate on liquid fuel cars, which would still be the vast majority of those people can afford, will put us on our way towards this victory, a victory for the entire world against terror and the cartel. Get this book, read it, spread the word. If it doesn't get you excited about this solution in an era of growing despondence and despair, either you're an idiot or you're part of the elites of this country (or another) who are benefiting from the current oil monopoly.
Post Scripts:
There's been a lot of talk lately about biofuel subsidies. The crux here is that all subsidies & tariffs artificially affect the marketplace. Subsidies are counterproductive and will never allow market forces and innovation to move things forward naturally. Tariffs are usually only appropriate to counteract another country's poor behavior, such as inadequate worker rights or...you guessed it...subsidies. Oh, but the oil companies (such as BP) love subsidies, even the biofuel ones. Take a moment to think about why they might be in favor of corn growers taking perfectly good edible corn, converting it to ethanol, causing the price of food to rise (actually most of this is caused by over-fishing & the move to more grains or meat in coastal areas, people around the world eating more, and higher oil prices), and getting essentially a kick back for doing this. Hmm...why might BP like that, and then go out and fund research on biofuel's effects on food prices? Subsidies are not the free market in action, and don't let anyone tell you different. Do we even need to get into the psychology for why the U.S. farm lobby might like ethanol import tariffs?
A Flex-Fuel Mandate plus ZERO Fuel Subsidies & fewer tariffs would allow things to work out on their own. Be wary of propaganda to the contrary.
There is no need for mandating on the supply end. That's supply-side economics. A form of demand-side economics is what Zubrin envisions here. Requiring gas stations to include at least one pump of alcohol or mandating gas contain a certain percentage of ethanol is an outdated mode of thinking. The brilliance of a single-mandate, demand-side strategy is how the inherent power of capitalism does the rest. Supply-side economics is actually not the free market at its best, which is why it's so inefficient and ineffective. It's closer to Marxism than capitalism, which is rather ironic if you think about it. It takes away choice from the consumer.
At this very moment, states across America are mandating 10% ethanol in petrol. Some are about to ban the pure stuff. That is not the solution. Let the market decide. Let the consumers choose. BUT STANDARDIZE ON CAPABILITY. I talked to several gas station attendants and managers. Guess what? There are a massive number of small business owners who are wildly upset with alcohol fuels because their two-strokes and other small engines are malfunctioning on it. Some of them have to drive out of town to get the pure petrol. Soon they'll have to either drive out of state or buy new lawnmowers and weedwhackers. All it's doing is creating more dislike for biofuels and is a worthless nickel & diming technique, anyway.
DO NOT REMOVE CHOICE. A flex-fuel mandate creates the opportunity for demand cheaply and simply by expanding on economy-of-scale levels the mass option to use alcohols, but it does not force the supply-side. Are there really any sane economists left who'd even attempt to promote Reaganomics in the 21st century? My understanding is the issue was debunked over a decade ago in a great many peer-reviewed journal articles, with games theory and numbers to back it up. Japan's state-subsidized halcyon bubble popping was the final nail on voodoo economics' coffin.
Detroit, Detroit, Detroit! With all this talk about auto sales and the health of the Big Three, need I say more? Would this not give people an incentive to buy a new car?
Speculation does cause prices to rise in the short and mid-term, but assuming everything else stays the same, it tends to help reduce prices in the long run compared to what they would have been otherwise (in the long run, that is) by "preparing" the supply to meet the expected demand.
As soon as a mandate occurs, whatever the pre-mandate futures-induced part of that price was would almost immediately evaporate as speculators dump their hedges. You will only find out exactly how much of a speculation price increase there has been within the first few months of the mandate as it quickly disappears.
Recently, I heard one guy on simhq.com go off on me about how people in Alaska wouldn't be able to use methanol without it freezing and making their life miserable in the long winter. I'll address the logic of this statement separate from the facts. If this were a centrally-controlled communist government in their infinite wisdom mandating that every pump in America stock something that froze in that region & season, then indeed it would be a problem. But in a free market system where only the capability has been mandated on the demand-end, pumps can stock whatever they think people will want to buy. If a pump manager were dumb enough to stock only fuel that people didn't want that time of year when there were other alternatives, him going out of business would be good for the market. The market is smart. A government controlling it on the supply-end is inherently stupid and inefficient in comparison. However, the equally good news here is that alcohols in fact have lower melting/freezing points than petrol. Methanol, after all, is commonly used in antifreeze. It also has a safer, higher flash point, which is why it is so commonly used in racing.
There are two other issues being brought against alcohols and alcohol-petrol mixes. The first is methanol's corrosive properties. But it is primarily a problem with aluminum and rubber. Poly fuel lines are immune to it and aluminum is already diminishing in use in engines and fuel tanks. Again, methanol is already used in antifreezes. Any tri-fuel flexible car that is sold new on the market will already be easily anti-corrosive. Certainly any gas station investing in more alcohol fuels would be doing so at their own expense, that is, the station's. This as the market creates economic incentive through natural profit expectations as demand increases with more of these vehicles on the road, that is, as a result of the mandate. Such station infrastructure improvements are therefore not a hurdle since they are carried out voluntarily and corrosion resistance is an understood necessity. Again, pretty much just no rubber and aluminum. Many racing circuits around the world rely on methanol already without much complaint. For the record, IndyCar switched to ethanol from methanol because they got a special marketing deal in 2006.
Then we have T. Boone Pickens' Liquid or Compressed Natural Gas idea (LNG/CNG). It's in the right direction, but natural gas is not liquid at room temperatures or normal pressures. LNG requires cryogenics. CNG requires pressurized canisters. It costs extra to have your vehicle outfitted with this capability and you have to deal with either canisters or a cooling system, usually filling up your trunk. The thought consumers would have to go through to choose that upgrade route, refuel, and mechanically flip a switch between petrol and natural gas lacks the transparency & elegance of the flex-fuel mandate. With Zubrin, new cars under the mandate happen to give you the option of using the cheapest fuel at the local pump...whatever that may be. Keep it simple. Furthermore, the most common means of producing methanol is already from natural gas. So even before methanol-producing microbes come on-line or ethanol from the developing world is produced in quantity, methanol from natural gas is already competitive with petrol RIGHT NOW. Thus natural gas already has a role in flex-fuel without needing compression canisters, cryogenics, or relying on the education of consumers on the subject.
And did I actually hear Pickens mention his LNG idea as a "bridge" to hydrogen fuel-cells? Exsqueeze me? I hope he's planning himself on paying for those $100,000 cars for all of us, the expensive required hydrogen infrastructure since you again wouldn't have fuel choice, and offsetting the fact that it is far more wasteful than just using batteries to store energy. Space vehicles often use hydrogen fuel cells because price is no object in such exotic situations and they need as much energy as they can carry. Personally, I think Pickens' ideas on powering the electrical grid are more promising than his fuel proposals.
|
|
|
|
| |
